4 ms·

<sarc> Yes. Very much special treatment: "we hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers" </sarc> Epic seems to be fig

<sarc> Yes. Very much special treatment: "we hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers" </sarc> Epic seems to be fighting the good fight against a company abusing market power. I hope they win.

randiantech 6y ago
But Tim S. explicitly said that he did not ask for special treatment. This is just that.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  You could take an interpretation that big players getting a different rate than small players isn't special treatment but normal procedure, so a big player not being given the big player rate is the special treatment. The problem with any language dealing with equality is that there are different ways to define equal and very specific definitions can result in different results. This is also true for the concept of random and there is even a mathematical paradox related to this (which is great for stripping off all the baggage that real world examples bring with them). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jmisavage 6y ago
Are they abusing market power though? 30% seems to be the standard rate for online stores. Google and Apple do it. Steam is 30%. And it’s been report that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo also take a 30% cut. Physical store such as GameStop, Best Buy, and Walmart take 30% too. Epic only takes 12% which is great, but they’re also locking up games in exclusive deals which I think is way worse. Edit: I pulled these numbers from IGN’s article. Although I’ve seen another report that matches the 30% in most places. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
- grumple 6y ago
  It’s a _lot_ for what’s basically just payment processing (that’s all it is for in app sales). Looks like price collusion by the major players as well, which is also illegal.
  - smachiz 6y ago
    That's not true, it's also discovery, trust and an ecosystem to run your apps in. Calling the app store just payment processing is a ridiculous simplification. Epic's store charges 12%, but has neither the hardware platform, or software platform - and relatively little market share. They arguably should be charging ~5% since it's actually closer to just payment processing and delivery.
    - grumple 6y ago
      Apple takes 30% for in-app sales. People already have the app, there is no discovery or trust benefit. The App Store is awful for discovery anyway. You think we need the App Store to discover the Facebook app, Amazon app, Epic app? These apps spread by network effects, not discovery in the store. Users pay for the hardware platform. I find games for the first time with the Epic Store. Market share isn’t really super relevant, they are the newest entry in the market.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        I think Apple is probably on the wrong side of anti-trust law on this, but there is certainly a trust benefit (and UX benefit) to a unified payment platform. The history of mobile/online payments is littered with instances of users being confused/defrauded. > Users pay for the hardware platform. This isn't really relevant. Not only is an iPhone worthless without software, but subsidization of hardware by services is very common.
        grumple 6y ago
        Isn’t Visa/MasterCard the unified payment platform? Obviously the iPhone is worthless without software, except it comes with a 1k price tag. Part of that is for the OS. The hardware certainly doesn’t cost that much (comparable offerings from hardware-only manufacturers cost less). This is not a case where the hardware cost is subsidized. Numbers from various sources suggest the iPhone sells for triple the cost of manufacturing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

randiantech 6y ago

But Tim S. explicitly said that he did not ask for special treatment. This is just that.

SkyBelow 6y ago
You could take an interpretation that big players getting a different rate than small players isn't special treatment but normal procedure, so a big player not being given the big player rate is the special treatment. The problem with any language dealing with equality is that there are different ways to define equal and very specific definitions can result in different results. This is also true for the concept of random and there is even a mathematical paradox related to this (which is great for stripping off all the baggage that real world examples bring with them). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jmisavage 6y ago

Are they abusing market power though? 30% seems to be the standard rate for online stores. Google and Apple do it. Steam is 30%. And it’s been report that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo also take a 30% cut. Physical store such as GameStop, Best Buy, and Walmart take 30% too. Epic only takes 12% which is great, but they’re also locking up games in exclusive deals which I think is way worse. Edit: I pulled these numbers from IGN’s article. Although I’ve seen another report that matches the 30% in most places. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

grumple 6y ago
It’s a _lot_ for what’s basically just payment processing (that’s all it is for in app sales). Looks like price collusion by the major players as well, which is also illegal.
- smachiz 6y ago
  That's not true, it's also discovery, trust and an ecosystem to run your apps in. Calling the app store just payment processing is a ridiculous simplification. Epic's store charges 12%, but has neither the hardware platform, or software platform - and relatively little market share. They arguably should be charging ~5% since it's actually closer to just payment processing and delivery.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Apple takes 30% for in-app sales. People already have the app, there is no discovery or trust benefit. The App Store is awful for discovery anyway. You think we need the App Store to discover the Facebook app, Amazon app, Epic app? These apps spread by network effects, not discovery in the store. Users pay for the hardware platform. I find games for the first time with the Epic Store. Market share isn’t really super relevant, they are the newest entry in the market.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      I think Apple is probably on the wrong side of anti-trust law on this, but there is certainly a trust benefit (and UX benefit) to a unified payment platform. The history of mobile/online payments is littered with instances of users being confused/defrauded. > Users pay for the hardware platform. This isn't really relevant. Not only is an iPhone worthless without software, but subsidization of hardware by services is very common.
      - grumple 6y ago
        Isn’t Visa/MasterCard the unified payment platform? Obviously the iPhone is worthless without software, except it comes with a 1k price tag. Part of that is for the OS. The hardware certainly doesn’t cost that much (comparable offerings from hardware-only manufacturers cost less). This is not a case where the hardware cost is subsidized. Numbers from various sources suggest the iPhone sells for triple the cost of manufacturing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]